Has the Democratic Party moved to the left over the last 30 years & if so, do you see this development in a favorable or unfavorable light?

@MarkPaul I completely agree with your analysis of the Trumpian GOP. Still, while that explains how people like myself, Liz or Dick Cheney, Adam Kinzinger or other former Republicans can vote for Harris, it doesn’t mean the Democratic Party hasn’t also programmatically shifted to the left (in particular on economics) since the Clinton-Gore years.
You seem to be fairly perceptive of political developments, so wouldn’t you say that the Democratic Party has become gradually more supportive of active state intervention and increased redistribution?

@CedricH I don't think so. If you consider the Civil Rights movement, the Affirmative Action program, and many of the "safety net" programs of the 1960's and 1970's, mostly (but not entirely) pushed by the Democrat Party, there was loud criticism of wealth redistribution. And, that criticism is not entirely wrong. The stated motive was to spread the wealth to more of the population. If we look even further back with the institution of the income tax in the USA, the loud cry from the wealthy (not all, but many) is their money was being "grabbed" to give it to others. So, my point is this not a new "thing."

Today, you have the Republican Party largely advocating government instituted book bans, government mandates around reproductive rights, flirting with the idea of stamping down individual rights that don't conform to one biblically interpreted standard, using the government to control individual thinking (banning the use of "climate change" in state documents and policy statements: Florida, banning all pornography and jailing those who distribute it: Project 2025), it's not a stretch to argue the use of "conservative" has become a placeholder for "active state intervention." Remarkably, the tax cuts implemented entirely and almost exclusively by the Republican Party was designed to increase tax incentives for the wealthy. Did someone say, "increased redistribution?"

The troubling trend is the left-extremists and the right-extremists who were on the fringes in the past have both gained entry to centre stage. Historically, that's not surprising. There have always been periods when extremists gain attention. In the USA, "the red scare" of the 1950's did gain mainstream acceptance... for a while. For a while.

I don't think the Democrat Party is necessarily more left-leaning than in the Clinton-Gore years, but the left-leaning voices are louder now than they were then. It's the same with the extremists on the right. When it comes to economics specifically, active state intervention contrasted with "the invisible hands theory" is being tugged and pulled. Neither extreme seems ideal and as Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have demonstrated, contrasted with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, moderating between those extremes is difficult but not impossible. On the other hand, it seems the Republicans have not moderated, but given up to their loud voices. I suggest that is why people like you, Liz and Dick Cheney, Adam Kinzinger and other "real" Republicans are able to take that leap of faith that the Republican speaker at the Democrat Convention summarized as voting for a Democrat in this election is not betraying their party, it's being a patriot. For moderates (like us), the left-extremists are annoying for sure, but the loud voices on the extreme right are intolerable. Wholescale tariffs on all imported goods as a solution for all economic ills...? "Childcare is childcare...?" No... not an option. Not a choice.

@MarkPaul

Don’t get me wrong, I‘m not insinuating that Democrats today have turned to the level of state interventionism and welfarism that were the norm in the pre-Reagan and post-depression era.

I‘d argue the following and bear with me. In the 1990s Clinton was by no means a libertarian. He raised taxes progressively to address the debt, his administration and Congress introduced and implemented child healthcare insurance and family leave from work. The economic data on poverty alleviation, employment and growth in median disposable household income was impressive.

However, on many issues his administration was much more economically moderate, centrist or neoliberal than today‘s Democratic Party. Which is what makes that iteration of the Democratic Party fairly appealing to me now.
So the level of total public spending, deficit spending and market interventions has grown gradually starting with the Obama administration and then suddenly with the Biden administration. Meanwhile, structural reforms and adjustments that would be part of Clinton‘s agenda have fallen off the wagon entirely when it comes the current Democratic program.

You see, it‘s not difficult to vote against a proto-fascist party like the GOP, it‘s more difficult, though, to vote for a Democratic Party that has substantively moved away from it‘s 1990 fiscal and economic policy positions.

@CedricH Sadly, but objectively, both parties have moved away fiscal responsibility and centrist economic policy positions. The Republican Party stood by and voted for huge tax cuts that they knew would increase the deficit while repeating the scripted words prepared for them that everything would work out. They now stand proud to support an unsolvable crazy-ass position of a puzzle that calls for mass deportation "like the world has never seen" (massive expense) + more tax cuts (decrease in revenue) + tariffs (trade war) + elimination of inflation (insanity).

So, from an economic perspective it's not a vote for the lesser evil, it's who has a saner economic policy. Neither party is going to treat or cure the social behaviour of spending more than can be covered with incoming revenue. Keep in mind, the Democrats didn't achieve that level of fiscal responsibility alone in the 1990's. Republicans controlled Congress at the time and worked with the Democrat president to achieve a common objective that both parties saw as politically advantageous in doing so and both claimed as a success (and rightly so, for both). It was a successful collaborative event that satisfied selfish motives on both sides.

It's not clear to me the public really wants fiscal responsibility right now or sees a reason for it. When neighbours speak up for it, that 1990's style of collaboration will be resurrected. In the meantime, which party is promoting the saner economic policy? Republicans no longer can legitimately raise their hand. Based on empirical evidence, Democrats can.

@MarkPaul Yep. In one word, yep. Comparatively, Harris does offer a saner economic policy if the alternative consists of unfunded (and unnecessary) tax cuts, an end to independent monetary policy, protectionism and nativism.

I just wanted to be sure that I‘m not the only one who sees that both parties became more populist on economics since the 1990s and early 2000s.